Hi Mel...just a little correction...hope you don't mind. US abortions since 1973 ...almost 49 million.

worldwide there are in excess of 46 million abortions PER YEAR.

Thanks for the correction, MEDC. My #s must have been outdated:

Then being in favor of a woman's right to choose is not being in favor of killing babies.



Just how many people do I have to help before I can post any ridiculous nonsense I choose, and feel entitled to do so without being questioned?

I respect Melodylane for everything she's done for victims of infidelity, but that shouldn't buy her any leeway on other issues.

Would it make you feel better if I added a little passive-aggressive smilie to my "aggressive" posts?

Is it just me or is there a total lack of critical thought on display in this post?


I'm not sure of the number...but when you get your first one it might be easier to figure out.

Can we get back to how to reduce abortions, or should we just get this thread locked?

I shudda posted this today instead of last Friday.

:RollieEyes:

LOL PM.........

But this thread has actually made it longer than most. And I am interested in discussing how to reduce abortions.

Over the years, I've opened up my home to four pregnant young women, and only one got an abortion. The other three had the child and are thankful they did.

a few surefire ways to reduce abortions:

make it a crime that is punished by a lengthy jail term.

make adoption more attractive to women.

educate women as to the actual abortion procedure (pro abortion people have fought this tooth and nail)

sterilize any woman that still chooses to have an abortion that is not for health of mother, incest or rape.

give fathers a say in keeping their children alive

do not allow kids to have a medical procedure without the permission of their parents.

stop believing that groups like Planned Parenthood actually give a hoot about women.

You ask a bunch of stuff in different posts so bear with me.


My experiences include volunteering at the local women's shelter. I did this in the past after I left my first (abusive) husband. I did it again last winter. Laws have most certainly improved in that time, but some things remain the same. Just because the laws are better doesn't change people's attitudes who are enforcing them.

IMO, killing is killing, though circumstances of self defense is a far cry from premeditated murder. To bring this back to the topic at hand, a woman who's life or health is in danger due to complications of the pregnancy could be considered to be acting in self defense. However, that argument doesn't wash with the Pro-lifers.

I never said I lacked education. I'm actually highly educated but in the area of science, not religion. I ask most of my questions to try to understand these things better - to analyze them I suppose since that's what I've been trained to do. I don't embrace or dismiss a theory lightly - I like to know everything there is to know about it before I pass judgement on it. This includes religious beliefs as well as scientific theories.

If so, then abortion isn't murder. This is the crux of the abortion debate, but also not the topic of this thread (though for some reason it keeps straying back to this).

If killing a human being is wrong, it is wrong no matter what. The bible says "Thou shalt not kill". In a courtroom murder is something more than just the killing itself - i.e. certain conditions are required. What about accidental killings for example a car accident (no liquor, high speeds or other traffic violations involved)?

Jumping to ML here now:

First of all, Nazi's and terrorists may be enemies, but they are distinctly human. Of that there is no argument.

The executioners of 911 targetted innocent life. War goes a lot further than 2 groups of armed men shooting at each other across a field. Most women who have abortions do not believe they are killing a complete human being. Their intent is to terminate pregnancy. You can call it anything from ignorance to outright satanistic if you want, but they aren't intentionally "targeting" an innocent life.

You are intitled to your belief and you don't have to justify it to me. But I'm entitled to mine also.

Sorry, but the US isn't the first country to go ever to war. It isn't the only country to lose lives in war, even in the wars listed. And believe it or not, there are wars going on right now that the US isn't involved in. How about some world stats?

Tabby...MURDER is unlawful killing. There certainly is a difference. Abortion cannot legally be considered murder at the moment as it is legal. It is against God's law...hence peoples use of the term murder.

Sorry things are so backwards in Canada. Women are treated very well here in the states in terms of sexual assault. It wasn't always that way...but it sure is now.

Your comment



makes NO sense at all as the vast majority of pro-life people ALWAYS put the health of the mother first.


WHAT?

I find your posts so lacking in critical thought and direction that I find it difficult to imagine they are serious.



this really makes no sense.

First of all, thanks medc for finally answering the question of this thread. I have a few comments and questions on your suggestions:

What about making adoption more attractive to men also? For the most part, it is married couples seeking to adopt (though not necessarily, but it could be a single man as easily as a single woman). Aside from making the process easier, how would you go about doing this?

I don't know that anyone has fought this - I've never had difficultly finding information on this. However, I never learned this in the "right" places (eg home or school). This should definitely be part of sex education - schools should provide it but parents should make sure they get ALL the information known at the time. True, this is pretty gory but how in the world can anyone make an informed decision without all the facts. Many aspects of life are gross and icky - get over it and learn what is necessary.

What about sterilizing the man that raped her? What about sterilizing high risk women (e.g. prostitutes)? The trouble with this one is how the heck are you going to prove it, especially if she had it done illegally.

I actually agree with this one regardless of the topic at hand. I believe it is still required here.

In our United States, those with faith-based agendas are able to petition the government for change and have the same panoply of rights as the secularist. The establishment clause creates a framework that separates church from state while protecting the free expression of religion. Those who would repudiate the establishment clause expressly reject our American form of government.

As to this topic, which stirs such passion--it may be instructive for those who hold faith based ideologies to remember that strident rhetoric, polemics often are ineffectual agents of change, and that extremism in a pluralistic society runs the risk of losing credibility. The most effective theists (who are agents for faith-based agendas) are always the ones who can modulate their tone to hold a wide appeal to a large cross section of Americans.

Any discussion (about abortion) that does not expressly focus upon the law of the United States is primarily internet grandstanding b/c wishful thinking is more akin to fantasy than reality. Those who believe that abortion is murder, life begins at conception etc., can petition the government for change but the law as it stands is as follows:

First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second, the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering the woman's life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

It is most unlikely that in the foreseeable future the high court will overturn a woman's constitutional privacy rights on this issue. At best, perhaps some future unknown court would hold that the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus (for federal purposes) is co-equivalent w/ a woman's privacy rights and consequently federal law should not be implicated at all. That would throw the matter back to the states and each one would be able take up the issue in their legislature.

The above scenario is highly unlikely but if those with faith based agendas seek to effect that type of change it is within their rights. Still, extremist rhetoric (that fails to recognize the establishment clause) is not part of the solution (for any agenda be it faith based or secular) and IMHO displays an Anti-American ideology.

--Brix

What else might it become? A puppy?

I think men that rape should have their peckers cut off...but the problems with that is there are a lot of women that cry rape even when it didn't happen. So, there would need to be a fool proof way to handle this issue so innocent men are not subjected to undue punishment.

Tabby, drop the rape issue. It is a VERY , VERY small percentage of cases. The issue here is rape on demand...not health of mother or rape. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience sake. No other reason.

As for adoption...we are talking about the PREGNANT WOMAN and making it more attractive to her. The adoption of newborns is not an issue...there is plenty of interest in adopting a baby put up for adoption.

Yes, the pro abortion crowd has fought education for years. They want the procedure to go by without the patient knowing what is actually happening and what their options are. They have even fought this in court.

I got this off the UC San Diego site - it is pro-life, but I noticed that most other sites quote the same figure - less than 1% of abortions are because of rape.

"2. Number of Abortions from Rape and Incest
less than 1% of women who have abortions do so, because of rape or incest (AGI)

A. Rape
•A recent Justice Dept. report returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes. Nat. Crime Victim Report, US Justice Dept. Aug. 95, R. Bachman
And how many pregnancies result?
•About 1 or 2 for each 1000. This translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.
•A study of 1,000 rape victims, who were treated medically right after the rape, reported no pregnancies. L. Kuchera, "Postcoital Contraception with Diethylstilbestrol," JAMA, October 25, 1971
•In another series of 117 assault rape victims, of whom only 17 were given hormone treatment after the attack, none became pregnant. Everett & Jimerson, "The Rape Victim," 237 OB & GYN, vol. 50, no. 1, July 1977, pp. 88-90
Only one or two out of 1000? Please explain.
There are about 100 million women in the United States old enough to be at risk for assault rape. Let’s use a figure of 200,000 forcible rapes every year. The studies available agree that there are no more than two pregnancies per 1,000 assault rapes.
So much for the numbers. Let’s look at it from another angle and see if that figure makes sense.
•Of these 200,000 women who were raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk of pregnancy.
•A woman is capable of being fertilized only three days out of her 30-day month. So divide 133,000 by 10, and 13,300 women remain.
•One-fourth of all women in the United States of child-bearing age have been sterilized. That drops the figure to 10,000.
•Only half of the assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm. Cut it in half again. We are own to 5,000.
•Fifteen percent of men are sterile; that drops the figure to 4,250. Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600.
•Another 15% are on the pill and/or are already pregnant. Now the figure is 3,070. Now factor in something that all adults know. It takes from five to ten months for an average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Using the smaller figure, to be conservative, divide the 3,000 figure by 5, and the number drops to about 600."

Here is why "pro-choice" is not the same as "pro-abortion":

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6256644&page=1

Sickening.

By what standard? Not yours. You have said that if one does not "believe" they are killing, they are not committing murder. So, I can refute that statment with your own logic. By your own standard, if *I* believe that war deaths are not murder then they are not. I don't even need to bother defending that view, I can just use your own logic. <shrug>


Abortion is a moral issue, one can hardly discuss a moral issue without discussing... morals. A better word would be UNJUST. And I think you are smart enough to know the difference. You are just being willfully obtuse.

If the LEGALITY of a killing justifies it, then you must admit that the NAzis were justified in killing Jews because it was legal under German law. Oh wait, you did! It is justified because they "believed" they were not killing a "complete human being." ["subhumans"]

I betcha you might protest that logic if I said I was going to kill YOU because I "believe" you are not a complete human being.


Yes, and so are abortion victims. They are not puppies or tomatoes. They are humans. There is no argument there.


Again, you are back to "belief" means truth, which is nonsense. Using your standard, the 911 terrorists did not believe they were killing "innocents" and were not committing murder. Thier "intent" was just to rid the world of blue eyed demons.

Murder is murder based on the truth, not on one's "belief." Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer did not belief he was doing anything wrong; it doesn't mean that is true.

Tabby, it appears we are back to the same old, completely refuted arguments that you made last week. You couldn't defend them last week and you can't defend them now. They make no sense, Tabby, and continually repeating them doesn't make them any more coherent.